Types of Teams

Graphics courtesy of NTaskOpens in new window A Team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.

There are many types of teams that can be useful in a variety of organizational settings. A leader must determine which team type most closely matches their organization’s needs. There are a variety of choices, because teams can be structured differently and be used to meet different needs.

1.     Problem-Solving Teams

If we look back 20 years or so, teams were just beginning to grow in popularity. At that time teams were typically composed of five to twelve hourly employees from the same departments who met for a few hours each week to discuss ways of improving quality, efficiency, and the work environment. We call these problem-solving teams.

In problem-solving teams, members share ideas or offer suggestions on how to improve work procedures and methods. These teams are rarely given the authority to unilaterally implement any of their suggested actions. One of the most popular applications of this type of team was quality circles, widely used in the 1980s.

2.     Self-Managed Teams

While problem-solving teams were on the right track, they did not involve employees in work-related decisions and processes.

A desire for greater employee participation led to experimentation with truly autonomous teams that could not only solve problems, but also implement solutions and take full responsibility for outcomes.

These employee groups are self-managed teams and are also commonly referred to as self-directed work teams, autonomous work groups, high-commitment teams, or empowered employees.

Movement toward self-managed teams represented a complete change in organizational structureOpens in new window. The traditional hierarchy of leaders, managers, supervisors, and operating employees was replaced by these teams, which are entirely responsible for their own operations.

The real change is that the first level of management has been eliminated and replaced by self-managing teams. The team members become individually and jointly accountable for performance and results. To build this accountability, team membership is a full-time, mandatory part of the job.

In this “leadership-free,” more personally rewarding environment, employees are exposed to all of the team’s operations and skills. This exposure forces employees to learn the work procedures in order to find more productive ways to work.

While the benefits of using self-managed teams is evident, today’s leaders should realize that using self-managed teams does not eliminate the need for all managerial control. Instead self-managed teams should represent a balance beween management and group control.

As in any team-based environment, simply imposing a team structure doesn’t ensure an effective process. First, leaders must help employees develop the skills they will need to work together as a team. Implementation of teamwork training is perhaps the most important thing leaders and organizations can do to increase the likelihood of success of self-managed teams.

Additionally, leaders and organizations would be wise to debunk some of the myths leaders and other managers hold about self-managed teams and how they work. The following presents some common misconceptions and corresponding truths about self-managed teams:

• Self-managed teams do not need leaders. Teams definitely need some type of leader to transfer traditional leadership responsibilities to team members. The role of the leader varies from team to team (e.g., coach, facilitator), but leaders are necessary in every team.
• Leaders lose power in the transition to teams. In fact, leaders retain power but use it differently. Instead of exercising power withing the group to control people, team leaders use their power to break down organizational barriers that can prevent team effectiveness.
• Newly formed teams are automatically self-managing. Team development takes time. Describing new teams as self-managed may establish unrealistic expectations.
• Employees are eager to be empowered. Although this may be true for many employees, it is not true for all. Some consultants estimate that 25% to 30% of workers—regardless of their position in the organization—don’t want to be empowered. Teamwork must be learned, but also accepted.
• If you group employees in a team structure, they will function as a team, and the organization will reap the benefits of teamwork. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always work that way. Groups must go through a developmental process before they can function successfully in teams.

3.     Cross-Functional Teams

A team concept that has recently become popular is the cross-functional team.

Cross-functional teams are an effective means for allowing people from different areas within an organization, or between organizations, to exchange information, develop new ideas, solve problems, and coordinate complex projects.

An example of a commonly used cross-functional team is the task force. There are particular difficulties managing cross-functional teams.

4.     Virtual Teams

With continuing developments in information technologyOpens in new window, a new type of group has entered the workplace. This is the virtual team, whose members connect and collaborate entirely through virtual channels, like videoconferencing, texting, WebEx, Skype, GoToMeeting, Google Hangout, and many others.

In this new age of the Internet, intranets, and continued advances in technology, there is no doubt that more and more virtual teams will operate in all types of organizations as some have lauded them as modeling the workplace of the future.

Members of virtual teams typically do the same things as members of face-to-face teams, but the team members communicate in a different environment. They share information, make decisions, and complete tasks. Virtual teams are an everyday phenomenon at Google where 2 in 5 of its teams include Googlers in more than one location; 30% of its meetings involve two or more time zones.

Although technology can make communication possible among a group of people separated by great distances which has the advantage of focusing group interactions and decision-making on facts and objective information rather than on emotional considerations, the limited social context can also be a disadvantage to decision-makers.

The lack of social rapport and direct interaction among members of virtual teams may make it more challenging to work on these teams possibly because it is more difficult to understand other team members’ perspectives and biases. The high cost of supporting technology and training to bring virtual teams online can also be a drawback.

5.     Response Teams

Some organizations have developed teams organized solely for the purpose of responding to specific situations in the organization.

Some organizations use a type of emergency-response team to address maintenance problems that may occur in the evenings and on weekends when the regular maintenance crew is not on duty.

The members of these teams have the same responsibilities, backgrounds, and experience as regular team members although they primarily handle maintenance issues that occur outside regular hours.

In an effort to reduce workplace violence, some organizations have formed violence-response teams. These teams, composed of both hourly and managerial employees, conduct initial risk assessment surveys, develop action plans to respond to violent situations, and perform crisis intervention during violent, or potentially violent encounters.

There is every indication that more and more organizations will develop violence-response teams given the rise in violence at work. The Occupational Safety and Helath Administration (OSHA)Opens in new window has developed voluntary guidelines that some organizations are following to prevent and deal with worforce violence.

It should be evident by the above discussion that there are a variety of teams in place in organizations. Today’s leaders must understand the purposes of these teams and do what is necessary to develop successful teams in their particular work areas.

The Benefits of Using Teams

More than three decades ago, when companies like General FoodsOpens in new window, VolvoOpens in new window, and ToyotaOpens in new window introduced teams into their production processes, they made news because no one else was doing it.

Today, it is just the opposte. Pick up almost any business magazine, and you will read that teams have become an essential part of the way business is being done in organizations like General ElectricOpens in new window, AT&TOpens in new window, MotorolaOpens in new window, Lululemon AthleticaOpens in new window, Johnson & JohnsonOpens in new window, Green Solar TechnologiesOpens in new window, and others.

Why the continued popularity of teams? The evidence suggests that teams typically outperform individuals when the tasks being done require multiple skills, complex judgments, and a range of experience.

As organizations have restructured themselves to compete more effectively and efficiently, they have turned to teams as a better way to utilize employee talents. Teams are more flexible and responsie to changing events than are traditional departments. Teams can be quickly assembled, deployed, refocused, or disbanded.

In addition the use of teams can indirectly help with worker motivation and skill development. The team experience can be motivating to team members in that team participation can promote employee involvement in operating decisions.

For instance, some assembly-line workers at John Deere are part of sales teams that call on customers. These workers know the products better than any traditional salesperson; and by traveling and speaking with farmers, they develop marketing skills and a greater connection to the company.

Teams are just like any other tool, however. They can be very powerful if used correctly, and they can be useless or even detrimental if used inappropriately. There is no doubt that teams have the potential to improve performance dramatically. The success of team proponents such as Ford and General Electric cannot be disputed. Yet teams alone are not enough. Strong supervision and organizational vision, mission, and goals must guide the use of teams.